Why BitLicense Case Should Not Be Dismissed

The executive director of Bitcoin Foundation does not want the pending case between Theo Chino and the New York Department of Financial Services in favor of the NYDFS for one reason.

Come May 4, the executive director of Bitcoin Foundation does not want Judge Lucy Billings to dismiss the pending case before her, between Theo Chino and the New York Department of Financial Services in favor of the NYDFS.

“Judge Billings should not dismiss the case in favor of the NYDFS, on May 4, 2017,” Llew Claasen states in an email about the issue. In this case, Chino sued the NYDFS over “23 NYCRR Part 200” also known as the BitLicense using a New York Civil Practice Law called Article 78.

According to a Bitcoin Foundation statement, Chino and his attorney, Pierre Ciric, are trying to stop the Bitlicense regulation in its tracks before it sets a global precedent. They are prepared to pursue the challenge all the way to New York’s highest court in what has been envisaged to be a long legal process that may make legal fees stack up quickly.

Chino’s argument is that the State Legislature has the right to define virtual currencies and it shouldn’t be the NYDFS. He alleged that the agency acted illegally and arbitrarily and exceeded its regulatory power when it promulgated its controversial “virtual currency” regulation in 2015 – Part 200 of Chapter 1 of Title 23 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations.

Claasen explains:

“On March 16, 2017, Chino first appeared in front of Judge Lucy Billings for a hearing into the matter. The judge did not dismiss the case as was requested by the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) and instead wanted to hear all factual and legal issues raised by Chino and rescheduled oral arguments on all issues for May 2017. This is not a frivolous matter and is being taken seriously by the presiding judge.”

The Foundation has always maintained that the BitLicense regulation is poorly conceived and has destroyed Bitcoin innovation in New York since it was introduced in June 2015. It is bent on seeing that regulators around the United States and the world do not start modeling their Bitcoin regulations on the New York example hence its support for Chino’s move.

“Ciric contends that the uncertainty around Bitcoin’s exact nature is widespread around the country, which significantly weakens NYDFS’s argument that it has a clear legislative mandate to regulate. Additionally, Ciric believes that the process used by NYDFS to regulate and the heavy-handed approach in drafting the regulation are important grounds to justify that the Bitlicense is ‘arbitrary and capricious’ which is the term used to challenge a regulation.”